FCC Considers Taking Action Against Comcast

Presto Vivace writes "According to CNet the Federal Communications Commission is considering taking action against cable operator Comcast modifying peer-to-peer traffic, a subject we've discussed here in the past. 'It looks like Chairman Martin, and by extension the commission, sees Comcast as going beyond simply managing its network. But even if the FCC decides that Comcast has violated Net neutrality principles, it's unclear what the agency can actually do to Comcast. The principles are not agency regulation.'"

Comments

Government Controls Not Working!!!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

When big business (or advocacy groups) can abuse consumers and no one intervenes until there is a problem (even when it is illegal, or wrong), and there is NO punishment for doing so ... why would they conform?

Take their license away?

[gnasher719]

Answering the question "what can the FCC do": I would assume that they could take their license away, as the final threat.

I don't think the Comcast situation has much to do with net neutrality. Lack of "net neutrality" would mean that a service provider slows down some traffic and not other traffic. So your bittorrent might take 12 hours instead of 1, but work without problems. But that is not what Comcast does: They actively manipulate the traffic that goes through their system, sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients. That, I think, could be very much in violation of whatever license they need.

If I sent you a letter and it arrived in five days instead of one day, I would complain. If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder.

Re:Take their license away?

[qortra]

sending fake abort messages to bittorrent clients.

If the post office deliberately threw away my letters, I would complain a lot louder. Given your description of what is going on, your metaphor is not apt. A better one:

The post office deliberately sends a soldier fake dear john letters, merely because they believe that soldier's girlfriend to be unscrupulous, or because they have grown tired of mailing that soldier's letters to his girlfriend.

Other than that minor point, I agree entirely.

Re:Take their license away?

[dkleinsc]

I would think that a really effective threat would be to take away their "common carrier" status and make Comcast legally responsible for all the traffic going through their network. For instance, since they actively manipulate their traffic, it can be argued they could stop all child pornography, copyrighted material, etc from traversing their network, and since they failed to do so they are liable for its distribution.

Re:Take their license away?

[CopaceticOpus]

Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave. Money is a fantastic motivator.

I don't know if the FCC has the authority and/or the will to take such an action, however.

Re:Take their license away?

[howdoesth]

The mindboggling thing is that his metaphor is far and away the best description of sandvining I have ever seen. The fact that you find it so unbelievable shows just how ridiculous what Comcast is doing really is.

Re:Take their license away?

[Phisbut]

Taking their license away would potentially hurt the customers even more. The solution is much simpler - money. Fine them, and keep raising the fines until it becomes more cost effective for Comcast to behave. Money is a fantastic motivator.

Won't Comcast then just increase the price of their service to cover the fines? Their customers can't change ISP to get a better now because they lack choice, they won't be able to change ISP to get a lower price then either.

Re:Take their license away?

[glindsey]

Then how about this: the phone company decides to disconnect your line because although they advertise that their customers can talk for an unlimited amount of time, they think you're just talking way too much, possibly about something they deem inappropriate. You can call right back and continue talking, but they'll keep periodically disconnecting you. When you complain about this to the phone company, they claim that they aren't stopping you from having your conversation; they're just slowing it down a lot in order to manage the number of phone calls on their lines.

Is that a bit more appropriate to you? It's still grossly unacceptable.

Comcast is safe...

[OglinTatas]

As long as they don't flash a nipple on TV, the FCC won't do anything. It's like Ed Meese or John Ashcroft work there.

This is what will happen...

[freedom_india]

FCC will issue a written warning to comcast to stop such practices, slap a $500 fine and close the file.
Comcast will continue to stop Bit Torrent until it can find a way to make money off it.
FCC's Martin will resign in Jan 2009 and join Comcast.

Local Monopolies

[iknownuttin]

Well, in an ideal world, they'd end up with no customers.

Yes! But, unfortunately, their lobbyists got the politicians to give them local monopolies. So, therefore, they won't lose customers unless their customers are willing to do without.

Re:Local Monopolies

[utopianfiat]

Well, you have to understand the kind of civil religion that came about in the US during and after the Soviet Union- a lot of people in the states see the free market as the Holy Ghost, Milton Friedman as Jesus Christ, and Ayn Rand as the One True God.
And if you contradict that with "socialist ideas" (including but not limited to Keynesian economics, trustbusting, welfare, and civil projects), prepare to be derided as one who will "tax the country into poverty".
I'm not kidding.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Chris Mattern]

Ah, so a government-created monopoly is an example of evils of the free market, not an example of problems with socialism. I see.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Bagheera]

Yes! But, unfortunately, their lobbyists got the politicians to give them local monopolies. So, therefore, they won't lose customers unless their customers are willing to do without.

Even when there's only one Cable system in town, there are usually alternatives for broadband. Not many, and often not as cost effective, but they are there. DSL is available in most areas, and Satellite is an option even in areas where there's not Cable OR DSL service. If you really want to have first rate service, and can afford it, full T1's are down under $300/mo in some places. Sure it's 5 times the price of Cable broadband, but you're dealing with a whole world's different class of service.

Personally, I'd love to see the FCC smack Comcast silly for this crap. Cable ISPs and Telco's like to claim Common Carrier protections for a world of things. But they want to be able to filter content and manipulate traffic too, and the FCC needs to put it's Governmental boot down and say "No! You can filter, or you can be common carrier. Not both!"

Wishful thinking, I know.

Re:Local Monopolies

[Mr2001]

You can't entirely blame the government for cable/telco monopolies.

How low can the barrier of entry really get, when anyone who wants to start up a new cable company is going to have to wire up every house in the area? And how many different sets of wires do you really want running along those poles, anyway?

Maybe these problems can be solved with modern technology, but historically, at least, it made some sense for these companies to have monopolies.

New Speak

[Nom du Keyboard]

Comcast has argued that it doesn't block P2P traffic. Instead, it says it simply slows down packets so that it can better manage its network.

That's like the phone company saying that you talk too much, and in order to slow down your talking they will suddenly and without warning hang up both telephones on the two ends of the conversation for you. Since you have a Redial button, this should only be a minor inconvenience for you at most.